Commit a2ce3afa by Simon Peyton Jones

### Comments and white space only

parent 25f2d688
 ... ... @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ instance Applicative FlatM where liftTcS :: TcS a -> FlatM a liftTcS thing_inside = FlatM \$ const thing_inside = FlatM \$ const thing_inside emitFlatWork :: Ct -> FlatM () -- See Note [The flattening work list] ... ... @@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ setEqRel new_eq_rel thing_inside if new_eq_rel == fe_eq_rel env then runFlatM thing_inside env else runFlatM thing_inside (env { fe_eq_rel = new_eq_rel }) -- | Change the 'FlattenMode' in a 'FlattenEnv'. setMode :: FlattenMode -> FlatM a -> FlatM a setMode new_mode thing_inside ... ...
 ... ... @@ -227,11 +227,15 @@ revert to SimplCheck when going under an implication. ------------------------ So the plan is this ----------------------- * Step 0: typecheck the LHS and RHS to get constraints from each * Step 1: Simplify the LHS and RHS constraints all together in one bag We do this to discover all unification equalities * Step 2: Zonk the ORIGINAL lhs constraints, and partition them into the ones we will quantify over, and the others * Step 2: Zonk the ORIGINAL (unsimplified) lhs constraints, to take advantage of those unifications, and partition them into the ones we will quantify over, and the others See Note [RULE quantification over equalities] * Step 3: Decide on the type variables to quantify over ... ... @@ -251,7 +255,7 @@ From the RULE we get lhs-constraints: T Int ~ alpha rhs-constraints: Bool ~ alpha where 'alpha' is the type that connects the two. If we glom them all together, and solve the RHS constraint first, we might solve all together, and solve the RHS constraint first, we might solve with alpha := Bool. But then we'd end up with a RULE like RULE: f 3 |> (co :: T Int ~ Booo) = True ... ...
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!